Where Are The Left’s Success Stories?

[Mushroom]

Second....the use of 'indigenous' is misleading.....

Now there I will fight you. Yes, we came here from Asia. But if that was tens of thousands of years prior. If that does not qualify, then I will step back even farther.

Many do not know this, but Primates originated in North America. during the Cretaceous Period. Where some made the move to South America and Africa, which were still conjoined. Where in Africa as we all know, primates evolved into Apes, then the Hominid branch. Meanwhile, over the millions of years they completely died out in North America and no primate species survived.

Therefore, technically North America is the "Original home" of Humans it could be said, and all of the rest of the continents they are the ones that moved in much later.

Or if you want to be more accurate, there are no indigenous people anywhere other than Central Africa. Europe, Asia, Australia, nowhere. In every single part of the globe no humans are indigenous if you have to stretch back 20,000 years and more to try and claim they do not belong where they are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now there I will fight you. Yes, we came here from Asia. But if that was tens of thousands of years prior. If that does not qualify, then I will step back even farther.

Many do not know this, but Primates originated in North America. during the Cretaceous Period. Where some made the move to South America and Africa, which were still conjoined. Where in Africa as we all know, primates evolved into Apes, then the Hominid branch. Meanwhile, over the millions of years they completely died out in North America and no primate species survived.

Therefore, technically North America is the "Original home" of Humans it could be said, and all of the rest of the continents they are the ones that moved in much later.

Or if you want to be more accurate, there are no indigenous people anywhere other than Central Africa. Europe, Asia, Australia, nowhere. In every single part of the globe no humans are indigenous if you have to stretch back 20,000 years and more to try and claim they do not belong where they are.

I'll take that under advisement.

My major gripe with 'indigenous' or 'native' is that it plays into the Left's victimology narrative.


And, there is the Kennewick Man....
"... first archeologist to evaluate the skull’s anatomical features declared it to be more Caucasian than Native American, and continued when Douglas Owsley, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution who is considered the expert on North American human remains, agreed with that conclusion. Owsley pointed out that the prominent forehead of Kennewick Man and thinner brain case made him more like Japanese Ainu or Polynesians rather than Native Americans."

Mystery of 8000 Year Old Kennewick Man’s Origins Solved

He may have lived a simple life back then, but Kennewick Man’s remains have sparked controversy and legal battles that the latest scientific investigation may finally put to rest

time.com

Latest reports are that the skeleton is more Asian than European......but, frankly, I don't find scientists any too objective these days.

It seems to be a bit too convenient.


But, I can't disagree with much of what you posted.

 

[Mushroom]

5. They were thousands of years behind the development of the Europeans

This also is inaccurate.

They were not all that far, and at the time the Europeans arrived, they had a great many things going on.

For example, three very large and complex political conglomerations, just in North America. Including the Missippians, the Iroquois, and of course the Aztecs in North America. Oh, and they knew of the wheel, many pre-columbian toys have been found with wheels. But what they lacked through a quirk of extinction was large beasts of burden. No cattle, no horses, nothing that would be suitable to carry wagons like they had in the rest of the world. Therefore, the most efficient means of transport remained human carried.

Also, they had been working bronze for at least 700 years before the Spanish arrived in Mexico. Even using "lost wax" casting methods. They had achieved some amazing results in the fields of domestication of both plants and animals, and were creating cities and political structures that would rival many in Europe.

What they lacked was the population density and precursor requirements (the aforementioned beasts of burden) to have moved in the same direction at the same speed as the Europeans or Asians did. In fact, if the extinctions as the Ice Age started to end had been different, horses would have died off in Asia and not in North America (where the horse actually evolved). And in the 1500's, you would have had far more sophisticated Indians traveling to discover their backwards European cousins.

But do not think they were "thousands of years behind". In many ways, they were just as advanced if not more so. With Confederacies being the most common political arrangement instead of Despotism and lineal monarchies with a hereditary ruling class. And we know the trade networks they had were impressive. With goods from South America being found in North America, and the reverse.

One of the basis for the power of the Aztecs is that they were the bottleneck that all trades passed through between north and south. And goods found there that the Spanish "discovered" had come from as far away as the Great Lakes and southern areas of South America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This also is inaccurate.

They were not all that far, and at the time the Europeans arrived, they had a great many things going on.

For example, three very large and complex political conglomerations, just in North America. Including the Missippians, the Iroquois, and of course the Aztecs in North America. Oh, and they knew of the wheel, many pre-columbian toys have been found with wheels. But what they lacked through a quirk of extinction was large beasts of burden. No cattle, no horses, nothing that would be suitable to carry wagons like they had in the rest of the world. Therefore, the most efficient means of transport remained human carried.

Also, they had been working bronze for at least 700 years before the Spanish arrived in Mexico. Even using "lost wax" casting methods. They had achieved some amazing results in the fields of domestication of both plants and animals, and were creating cities and political structures that would rival many in Europe.

What they lacked was the population density and precursor requirements (the aforementioned beasts of burden) to have moved in the same direction at the same speed as the Europeans or Asians did. In fact, if the extinctions as the Ice Age started to end had been different, horses would have died off in Asia and not in North America (where the horse actually evolved). And in the 1500's, you would have had far more sophisticated Indians traveling to discover their backwards European cousins.

But do not think they were "thousands of years behind". In many ways, they were just as advanced if not more so. With Confederacies being the most common political arrangement instead of Despotism and lineal monarchies with a hereditary ruling class. And we know the trade networks they had were impressive. With goods from South America being found in North America, and the reverse.

One of the basis for the power of the Aztecs is that they were the bottleneck that all trades passed through between north and south. And goods found there that the Spanish "discovered" had come from as far away as the Great Lakes and southern areas of South America.

The wheel is an identifying feature of the difference: three millennia.

Don't take it personally.


" In many ways, they were just as advanced if not more so."
Some, yes....in political confederacies. Benjamin Franklin commented on
During the debates over the plan for union, Franklin pointed to the strength of the Iroquois Confederacy and stressed the fact that the individual nations of the Confederacy maintained internal sovereignty, managing their own internal affairs, without interference from the Grand Council.

Gazetteer: News & Sports - University of Pennsylvania​

Hardly the majority.

 

[Mushroom]

My major gripe with 'indigenous' or 'native' is that it plays into the Left's victimology narrative.

Remember, I reject all extreme "Political Bias", both Left and Right.

And you also have to realize, I am one of those that believes that there were dozens if not hundreds of "incursions" into North America. Spread likely over tens of thousands of years. From many locations and origins. Including Europe. Yes, I do accept the Solutrean hypothesis, that at least one group came from Europe. But like many other such groups either died off, or watered down into nothing by the larger numbers that came from Asia.

I follow the facts and common sense paths, ignoring all political bias. It has no place in paleontology, so I reject it. And also see that you are also quite often pushing an agenda that I reject just as I do that of the "Far Left". We may agree on some things, but that does not mean I accept your political spin. It is just that at times, your spin tends to be closer to the truth of things. That does not mean it is right, however.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember, I reject all extreme "Political Bias", both Left and Right.

And you also have to realize, I am one of those that believes that there were dozens if not hundreds of "incursions" into North America. Spread likely over tens of thousands of years. From many locations and origins. Including Europe. Yes, I do accept the Solutrean hypothesis, that at least one group came from Europe. But like many other such groups either died off, or watered down into nothing by the larger numbers that came from Asia.

I follow the facts and common sense paths, ignoring all political bias. It has no place in paleontology, so I reject it. And also see that you are also quite often pushing an agenda that I reject just as I do that of the "Far Left". We may agree on some things, but that does not mean I accept your political spin. It is just that at times, your spin tends to be closer to the truth of things. That does not mean it is right, however.

"And also see that you are also quite often pushing an agenda that I reject "

This is my agenda.....and I don't believe you reject any of it:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
...individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
“free markets, free voices, free people”

 

[Mushroom]

The wheel is an identifying feature of the difference: three millennia.

Don't take it personally.

Which has already been explained. Quite clearly.

Indians had the wheel. What they lacked was anything to pull a cart. No horses, no oxen (cattle), they had nothing to pull a cart with. Therefore, what good would a wheeled vehicle be to them?

It would be like giving the Romans a thousand guns, but no way to make gunpowder. Technologies require a precursor to evolve. For wagons, that means something to carry it around with. No horses or oxen, no wagons. And the closest that North and South America had was the llama. Far to small to be an effective beast of burden, and in an area that topology made such a technology impractical.

Now leave at least one of the larger equine species alive, and I have absolutely no doubt that they also would have invented it, at around the same time it was in the rest of the world. But nothing to haul it with meant it was not needed.

 

[Ringo]

1. The American Indians were not ‘native’ to this continent. Any study of same….not government school….will prove that the ‘Indians’ migrated over the Bering land bridge from my home continent. The Asian visitors settled in the northwest, moved down the west coast, and on to South America.

2.They were simply savages, who inspired fear due to their propensity for murder and torture.
These were stone age peoples,
They were thousands of years behind the development of the Europeans…..

1. If the Indians, who lived in America for thousands of years, were not native to America, then the Anglo-Saxons, Spaniards, French and most other inhabitants of Europe, all the more, to a much, much greater extent, were not native to Europe. Perhaps this would make the Indian conquest of Europe more legitimate in the eyes of a Nazi like you.
2. They are the same savages as the negroes, which, in the eyes of Nazis like you, makes the slave trade not only legal, but also noble - after all, this is the "burden of a white man" carrying civilization to savages ...

And about savages, I know much more terrible savages from civilized Europe who put the destruction of people on stream on an industrial scale not long ago, during the life of my parents.

 

[Mushroom]

The wheel is an identifying feature of the difference: three millennia.

Here, quick multiple-choice quiz. Name the order in which these first appeared:

Stirrup
Wheelbarrow
Chariot
Jesus

Here is something that may shock you, the wheelbarrow came last. Yes, it came thousands of years after the wheel, hundreds of years after Jesus lived. So think on that, were the Europeans "backwards", and over a thousand years ahead of the Indians? Because believe it or not, here is another question.

Name the order in which these appeared in Europe:

Mail Armor
Toledo Steel
Wheelbarrow
Gunpowder

Once again, guess what was last? Here is a clue, if you say anything other than "Wheelbarrow", you are wrong.

Gee, stupid Europeans. Had the wheel, but never made a wheelbarrow until after the Normans conquered Britannia. How backwards they were.

By that reckoning, that puts them just a couple of hundred years ahead. Because that was the first wheeled vehicle that the Indians could have used. ANd the Europeans did not invent that until the 12th century. Over a thousand years after the Chinese.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If the Indians, who lived in America for thousands of years, were not native to America, then the Anglo-Saxons, Spaniards, French and most other inhabitants of Europe, all the more, to a much, much greater extent, were not native to Europe. Perhaps this would make the Indian conquest of Europe more legitimate in the eyes of a Nazi like you.
2. They are the same savages as the negroes, which, in the eyes of Nazis like you, makes the slave trade not only legal, but also noble - after all, this is the "burden of a white man" carrying civilization to savages ...

"...in the eyes of Nazis like you,..."

Nazis were socialists, like you Democrats.
Both groups put their own citizens in concentration camps.

 

[Mushroom]

This is my agenda.....and I don't believe you reject any of it:

And you would be wrong. That is a political bias and I reject all such nonsense, from either side.

And why I am laughing at both of you. Ringo for attacking anybody that does not agree with him as a "Nazi" like a little child. And you pushing some nonsense in a way that does not apply, just because it is what you believe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you would be wrong. That is a political bias and I reject all such nonsense, from either side.

"That is a political bias"

Make your argument.

 

[Ringo]

Nazis were socialists, like you Democrats.

Why are so so stupid? Who will believe you anything after you say such nonsense?
As if you declared that the Earth is flat and continued to talk about science further.
Immediately after "Earth is flat", everyone is no longer interested in listening to you.

 

[Mushroom]

Make your argument.

You are making a list of political statements, and demanding that I agree with them.

My argument? Oh, that is quite simple. You claim they wanted a "limited constitutional government". That is wrong. 100% absolutely and positively wrong. Easily proven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are so so stupid? Who will believe you anything after you say such nonsense?
As if you declared that the Earth is flat and continued to talk about science further.
Immediately after "Earth is flat", everyone is no longer interested in listening to you.

Democrats and Nazis.....the very same programs, and nearly the same ways of getting them:



Government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 40% pre-war. Additionally (at least in the beginning) 80% of the budget was spent on social programs, not the hallmark of an "evil, right wing, capitalist economy." Sign in



-------------------------------------------------------------

Workers Welfare Programs:

In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.

a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.

b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.

c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.

d) 5 day week.

e) Free Public Health.

f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.

g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools

h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.

Nazi Hitler Economic Social and Political Policies

Click Here for Adolf Hitler and World War 2. What is NAtional SoZIalism. Economic, Social and Political policies of Adolf Hitler and NA...

lovkap.blogspot.com

1933-1945: In 1933 Hitler disbands the labor movement and strips Jews of citizenship. Jews, dissidents, and other minorities are put in concentration camps, where they are forced to work or killed outright. The Reich centralizes social programs and education as a means of control. The regime extends health insurance to retirees in 1941, and expands health care and maternity leave the following year. Commanding Heights : Germany | on PBS



During the 12 years of Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists expanded and extended the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had projected a powerful image of caring and support. Welfare state - Wikipedia







The Nazi rule under Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s led to an improvement in medical care and old age provision largely financed by high taxes on the wealthy, and theft from Jews and the people of the conquered territories (Aly 2007, 7). The Viability of the European Social Model: The German Welfare State and Labor Market Reform











The Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.

The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”

These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, by Götz Aly,

While underemphasized by modern historians, this socialism was stressed in many contemporaneous accounts of fascism, especially by libertarian thinkers. F.A. Hayek famously dedicated The Road to Serfdom to “the socialists of all parties”—that is, Labourites, Bolsheviks, and National Socialists.



Ludwig von Mises agreed, arguing in 1944 that “both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.”

The Nazis themselves regarded the left-right convergence as integral to understanding fascism. Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” Contrast this, he advised, with the Jews, who were the very “incarnation of capitalism.”

Using a farrago of previously unpublished statistics, Aly describes in detail a social system larded with benefits —open only to Aryan comrades, naturally.

According to Götz Aly’s Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, most previous treatments of German complicity in genocide overlook a significant aspect of Nazi rule. Aly, a historian at the Fritz Bauer Institut in Frankfurt and the author of more than a dozen books on fascism, urges us to follow the money, arguing that the Nazis maintained popular support—a necessary precondition for the “final solution”—not because of terror or ideological affinity but through a simple system of “plunder,” “bribery,” and a generous welfare state.

Hitler's Handouts

Inside the Nazis' welfare state

reason.com

To “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,” he writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,” subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless income.”

“The Nazi leadership did not transform the majority of Germans into ideological fanatics who were convinced that they were the master race,” Aly concludes. “Instead it succeeded in making them well-fed parasites.”

Hitler’s Beneficiaries demonstrates a correlation between moral collapse and government largess.

While Aly’s impressive economic history succeeds in reminding readers that Bolshevism and Nazism were, in the words of historian Richard Pipes, both “heresies of socialism,” that service is ultimately overshadowed by a needlessly radical conclusion." Hitler's Handouts

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are making a list of political statements, and demanding that I agree with them.

My argument? Oh, that is quite simple. You claim they wanted a "limited constitutional government". That is wrong. 100% absolutely and positively wrong. Easily proven.

Go ahead.

 

[Ringo]

Democrats and Nazis.....the very same programs, and nearly the same ways of getting them"

A lot of crap, instead of turning to the main thing, namely, in whose hands are the means of production, is there PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. This is the most important thing and it determines everything. In other words, "Money talks, Bull shit walks."
The nazis were an extreme form of capitalism - an open and frank dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, which, by the way, despite the defeat of the nazis and the country itself, increased its profits 5 (!) times as a result of the war. I repeat, in a defeated country.
One can easily imagine how the capitalists of the victorious side, that is, the capitalists of the United States, made a fortune.
To consider the nazis socialists, just because they took advantage of the popularity of the idea of socialism, and inserted this word "socialism" into the name of their party, means to sign in your stupidity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A lot of crap, instead of turning to the main thing, namely, in whose hands are the means of production, is there PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. This is the most important thing and it determines everything. In other words, "Money talks, Bull shit walks."
The nazis were an extreme form of capitalism - an open and frank dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, which, by the way, despite the defeat of the nazis and the country itself, increased its profits 5 (!) times as a result of the war. I repeat, in a defeated country.
One can easily imagine how the capitalists of the victorious side, that is, the capitalists of the United States, made a fortune.
To consider the nazis socialists, just because they took advantage of the popularity of the idea of socialism, and inserted this word "socialism" into the name of their party, means to sign in your stupidity.

No vulgarity....no matter how thoroughly I've eviscerated your lies.

 

[Mushroom]

Go ahead.

*laughs*

I did not think you were even going to try to answer that.

Simple, what form of government did they create? First clue, it was called the "Articles of Confederation" for a reason.

Yes, they created a Confederacy. That was the government they created, and used for a decade. And it had, problems. So they set about trying to improve it, and only after a lot of haggling decided to just throw it all away and start over.

And it is not "limited", it is "stepped". In the areas that the Constitution turned over all powers to the Federal Government, they were absolute. Then the same in the powers they handed to the States. And finally, those they handed to "The People". Hardly limited at all, it set them out very clearly. But also it was obvious it was based on the earlier Confederation, and a lot of that still carried forward.

Once again, your bias is obvious as is your gaps in knowing and understanding the very foundations of your government. You are trying to bash it into following your beliefs. Which is a mistake, especially when others who do understand that see what you are trying to do.

But if they set about to create a "limited Constitutional Government", then why did they not do it? In fact, the Second Government (the one we are in now) gave the government far more powers than it ever had in the government they actually created. But it was also a compromise government, where both sides had their say, and had input until they finally reached a solution both sides could agree upon.

That is why I laugh. You scream to be on the "right side", not even seeing that the document you are saying is "perfect" is a compromise between Left and Right. After all, we call the debates between the two sides during this era the "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" for a reason.

In this, largely you have you as a staunch no-compromise Federalist. Then Ringo as a staunch no-compromise Anti-Federalist. And I just sit in the middle and laugh at both of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

*laughs*

I did not think you were even going to try to answer that.

Simple, what form of government did they create? First clue, it was called the "Articles of Confederation" for a reason.

Yes, they created a Confederacy. That was the government they created, and used for a decade. And it had, problems. So they set about trying to improve it, and only after a lot of haggling decided to just throw it all away and start over.

And it is not "limited", it is "stepped". In the areas that the Constitution turned over all powers to the Federal Government, they were absolute. Then the same in the powers they handed to the States. And finally, those they handed to "The People". Hardly limited at all, it set them out very clearly. But also it was obvious it was based on the earlier Confederation, and a lot of that still carried forward.

Once again, your bias is obvious as is your gaps in knowing and understanding the very foundations of your government. You are trying to bash it into following your beliefs. Which is a mistake, especially when others who do understand that see what you are trying to do.

But if they set about to create a "limited Constitutional Government", then why did they not do it? In fact, the Second Government (the one we are in now) gave the government far more powers than it ever had in the government they actually created. But it was also a compromise government, where both sides had their say, and had input until they finally reached a solution both sides could agree upon.

That is why I laugh. You scream to be on the "right side", not even seeing that the document you are saying is "perfect" is a compromise between Left and Right. After all, we call the debates between the two sides during this era the "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" for a reason.

In this, largely you have you as a staunch no-compromise Federalist. Then Ringo as a staunch no-compromise Anti-Federalist. And I just sit in the middle and laugh at both of you.

Here's what is at issue....and I'll say again....I don't believe you disagree with it:

What Is Limited Government?​

A limited government is one whose legalized force and power is restricted through delegated and enumerated authorities. Countries with limited governments have fewer laws about what individuals and businesses can and cannot do. In many cases, such as the United States, it is a constitutionally limited government, bound to specific principles and actions by a state or federal constitution.

What Is a Limited Government, and How Does It Work?

A limited government is a political system in which legalized force is restricted through delegated and enumerated powers.

www.investopedia.com

Go ahead.....tell me you disagree.